Why not? Is OSX not capable of doing a good job outputting through HDMI? Or is it some sort of a hardware problem?
I had no idea that Macs couldn't output through HDMI.
Is that an attempt at sarcasm or do you really have no idea that Apple supports the DisplayPort standard that top of the lIne Dells, and Nvidia and ATI GPUs are supporting? Do you really have no idea that DisplayPort exceeds HDMI bitrate and capabilities or that you only need a $1 adapter from mDP(male)-to-HDMI(female) to output HDMI/DVI video signals?
Is that an attempt at sarcasm or do you really have no idea that Apple supports the DisplayPort standard that top of the lIne Dells, and Nvidia and ATI GPUs are supporting? Do you really have no idea that DisplayPort exceeds HDMI bitrate and capabilities or that you only need a $1 adapter from mDP(male)-to-HDMI(female) to output HDMI/DVI video signals?
Nope. Not sarcasm. I don't know what displayport is. I rarely buy stuff that isn't yet widely supported. It was years before I bought my first USB peripheral, for example. I waited until after it was no longer called the "Useless Serial Buss".
If inexpensive adapters are available, there's no big deal, of course. Kind of a PITA when you are out and about, but not huge.
In addition to active converters, the same guideline document also describes a way for devices supporting both DisplayPort and DVI 1.0 or HDMI to use a single DisplayPort connector for both, using a relatively simple adapter that adjusts for the lower voltages required by the DisplayPort connector. A notable limitation is that this is limited to Single Link DVI/HDMI, and that an active Converter is needed for Dual-Link communication.
So I'm not sure exactly how this limitation would affect real-life usage - will 1080p/7.1/5.1/high def stuff work properly with Single-Link? If so, why was Double Link developed? Is there any practical problem with DP-to-HDMI conversion with a simple cable being limited to Single Link?
Apple supports the DisplayPort standard that top of the lIne Dells, and Nvidia and ATI GPUs are supporting?
I just Googled "Dell DisplayPort" and the first article at the first link said:
Dell is on a mission to prove it's a technology leader by making sure that DisplayPort--the DVI replacement that it's pushing hard for the industry to adopt--appears on your next notebook, PC, and monitor. There's just one problem: We don't need DisplayPort. It currently doesn't offer any real cost or performance benefits over the well-established HDMI interface, which is appearing on a growing number of products. DisplayPort's introduction is likely to cause confusion and frustration for buyers seeking a monitor that will work with their notebook or PC at home.
Wow. That's why I'm so rarely an early adopter. And I guess, that's part of the reason why I don't understand Apple's way of doing things.
I'm always leery of jumping on bandwagons before there's a band or a wagon - especially with this technology stuff. Its too dynamic and too fickle and too often PR accounts for success more than capability.
I'd hate to have to search for a limited selection of external monitors, rather than having a full selection of industry standard stuff available. But then again, I'd hate to have to search around for a limited selection of 'web videos too, rather than knowing that any/all of them will just work on my machine. I don't get it. Maybe I never will.
Nope. Not sarcasm. I don't know what displayport is. I rarely buy stuff that isn't yet widely supported. It was years before I bought my first USB peripheral, for example. I waited until after it was no longer called the "Useless Serial Buss".
If inexpensive adapters are available, there's no big deal, of course. Kind of a PITA when you are out and about, but not huge.
I'll check out DisplayPort. Thanks.
It's completely free, it's faster, it has more features, higher bandwidth, higher resolution, and it's futurefoward. It's the only way ATI is offering Eyefinity and it's the way of the future, unless Intel's LightPeak can make itself useful in a relatively short timeframe.
I just Googled "Dell DisplayPort" and the first article at the first link said:
[...]
Wow. That's why I'm so rarely an early adopter.
if you want to stick with old tech then nothing Apple does is right for you. There are still plenty of PCs with VGA ports.
As for what you quoted, it's pretty pathetic. Why are all the big vendors supporting in on the high0end if it doesn't have "performance benefits over [...] HDMI interface"? And you have to wonder about the validity of any comment that says It currently doesn't offer any real cost [...] benefits" when it's free while HDMI isn't and it's backwards compatible with HDMI/DVI singling out.
if you want to stick with old tech then nothing Apple does is right for you. There are still plenty of PCs with VGA ports.
I checked it out - my Dell has a VGA port too. \
My attitude WRT video is to buy last year's latest and greatest at a fraction of the price that it once was. I've never been a huge gamer, so that's where I've compromised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
As for what you quoted, it's pretty pathetic. Why are all the big vendors supporting in on the high0end if it doesn't have "performance benefits over [...] HDMI interface"? And you have to wonder about the validity of any comment that says It currently doesn't offer any real cost [...] benefits" when it's free while HDMI isn't and it's backwards compatible with HDMI/DVI singling out.
I dunno - it was the first article on the first click away from Google. BTW, the cost of licensing HDMI is 4 cents per device, according to something I read somewhere in the last couple of hours. Maybe Wiki?
And yeah - after doing some looking around, I agree that the article was lame.
I would dock it so that I don't have to hold it 2 hours for watching a movie. And charging the battery at the same time would be standard.
There are accessories for you to choose from other than the keyboard/dock combo. Here's one that Apple will ship soon:
Within 3 months, there will tens of accessories. Within a year, there will be hundreds. Maybe a "smartbook" case will be one of them.
Quote:
No. I would like to exchange files with an USB drive, a camera, iPod and so on without the need of a computer. That is what netbooks can do. And I see that the iPad tries to compete with netbooks.
Here are some other accessories:
Less convenient than a netbook, but one has to make tradeoffs on what you want. Netbooks will run your typical MS Windows software too, iPad users will not have them to play with, but I imagine Apple is selling something other than a cheap Windows laptop with an iPad, no?
The iPad is not designed to access web video. The iPad is not designed to dock on a bedside tray table and play a movie in landscape mode. The iPad is not designed to optimally display 16:9 content, or any content in HD. The iPad is not designed to play most common audio and video formats and codecs. The iPad is not designed to access external hard drives. The iPad is not designed to work as a common portable external hard drive. The iPad is not designed to output via HDMI to TV sets.
The iPad doesn't make breakfast for you either. Really, what's the point here?
Like all of Apple's products, the iPad serves to do the few key cases really well, and leaves out all corner cases, and all cases that goes against Apple's strategic direction. If one finds those cases really valuable, the best advice is to not get an iPad.
Will they cause the iPad to be a commercial failure? Who knows, but they've done fine with the same kind of strategy for Macs, iPods, iPod touches, and iPhones. The unit market for iPads will be in the 2-4 million units per year in 2010, maybe 2-4 million per quarter in 2012. If they end up selling 2x as many iPads per quarter as they do Macs, I think they are doing extremely well. More than extremely well.
"The iPad is not designed to dock on a bedside tray table and play a movie in landscape mode."
There will be plenty of accessories that'll allow one to view in landscape.
"The iPad is not designed to optimally display 16:9 content, or any content in HD."
Does it really matter? Somehow I don't think so. People can choose to view videos at original aspect ratios, but downscaled or have it cropped in fullscreen. They will then continue to enjoy their content.
Are you going to complain about black borders on all TV and monitors for 2.35:1 content? Do people even complain about it? Not really. Most just move on and play them cropped or with black borders. Hell, what drives my bat-shit insane are people who stretch 4:3 content (90% of the TV content out there) to fill the screen on 16:9 aspect ratio TVs, and think nothing of it. I honestly think people don't even know the difference. If that doesn't bother people, I'm guessing the presence of black borders won't bother people.
"The iPad is not designed to play most common audio and video formats and codecs."
H.264, AAC and MP3 are 90% of the cases out there. I'm sure Apple is more than happy to not put in the work to support Windows media, FOSS formats, or any others.
The iPad is not designed to access external hard drives.
Perhaps there will be an app for that. It looks like it can view SD cards through the adaptor, but who knows if it'll read NTFS or HFS+.
The iPad is not designed to work as a common portable external hard drive."
When that becomes really important, I'm sure Apple will turn on the switch. In the meanwhile, I'm sure there will be an app for that through both the dock connector and WiFi.
The iPad is not designed to output via HDMI to TV sets."
It supports the usual composite and component inputs. Costly with an adaptor, but if you find it valuable enough, then I'm sure buying the adaptor is money well spent.
The iPad is not designed to access web video. The iPad is not designed to dock on a bedside tray table and play a movie in landscape mode. The iPad is not designed to optimally display 16:9 content, or any content in HD. The iPad is not designed to play most common audio and video formats and codecs. The iPad is not designed to access external hard drives. The iPad is not designed to work as a common portable external hard drive. The iPad is not designed to output via HDMI to TV sets.
Not to mention you keep calling MS vaproware and the fact is Windows & is as good as if not better then Snow Leopard.
I think the idea of a Win7 touch tablet is very exciting. Just think of the fun I'll have repairing my Registry on a touch screen! And the number of new and innovative touch-based defrag programs should be mind-boggling. I expect Symantec and Norton won't let me down either--just touch to scan and pinch the virus to remove it! And in 6 months, when it's time to re-install, touch will only make it more fun.
I'm still under the impression that nearly no Windows user want to use any simplified slate computing device. The closest thing to a slate I've gathered that any Windows user wants is a convertible netbook such as the Asus Eee PC T101MT.
Be sure to watch the video. Then read the comments. There's a certain culture clash between the commentators, Engadget editors & contributers, and Apple users that makes reading them amusing.
Is that 16:9. Esh! Maybe 4:3 isn't right for some but how about 3:2, 16:10 or something else in between. If I wanted something only for watching videos I'd have bought a portable DVD player a long time ago.
Is that 16:9. Esh! Maybe 4:3 isn't right for some but how about 3:2, 16:10 or something else in between. If I wanted something only for watching videos I'd have bought a portable DVD player a long time ago.
1024 x 600 is something like 16/9.4. For iPad, 3:2 may be doable, but in the end, I think 4:3 was better on average for all the uses it has.
And no no no, you want to buy the iPad (at least the 32 GB 3G model) for portable DVD playing. It will be 1000x better at it. Take your DVD collection, transcode it to H.264, load the movies you want up on the iPad, and go where ever. Having 10 or 20 DVDs on the iPad at the swipe of a finger will be 1000x better than carrying a DVD player plus 10 to 20 DVDs. I was really waiting for the iPad announcement before spending hundreds of dollars on an in-car DVD player, and they saved me from purchasing a portable DVD player.
Like Discmans and pre-2001 era DAPs, DVD players are a usability nightmare. If you have any toddler kids, ripping/transcoding them onto your computer should be the first act before letting the kids touch the discs. And sheesh, the advertising (trailers and such) is horrible. It's getting to the point that they eventually will prevent you from skipping them. It's pretty hard as it is.
Yes it is, which means it will probably be a year (if ever) before I can get it for my Mac Pro
I am a little surprised they have six physical ports on the card since display port allows chaining of up to six displays. Then again if you have six 30" high resolution displays...
Maybe you are right. But the iPad isn't a replacement for a computer! That is the big problem here. You still need a computer to exchange files with it and you can't do chatting/surfing the full web/ and dont have a webcam. These are things the most non-geeks are using their PCs for.
The iPad is for gadget lovers who have some money over. IMHO
I think you have it reversed. Most people have computers already and don't love them, rarely even like them. They like what they can do with them - consume media, communicate, create (a little). People already have computers but the iPad will actually allow them to do most of their tasks where they want to and more portably and more comfortably with much lower maintenance overhead. People who love their traditional computers are the gadget lovers - and in a minority in the world. The traditional computer will become mostly a backup/storage device and productivity system when required - base station for computing devices like iPhone/iPads etc.
No-one on these boards is representative of the broader market and mostly clearly have huge issues empathizing with anyone unlike themselves.
The thing is a piece of junk. I watched some of the You Tube videos of it at a convention and the stupid thing had very poor resolution and the touch commands wouldn't work. Also if Microsoft comes out with that style of multi-touch, Apple should sew the crap out of them.
Comments
They don't? I had no idea.
Why not? Is OSX not capable of doing a good job outputting through HDMI? Or is it some sort of a hardware problem?
I had no idea that Macs couldn't output through HDMI.
Is that an attempt at sarcasm or do you really have no idea that Apple supports the DisplayPort standard that top of the lIne Dells, and Nvidia and ATI GPUs are supporting? Do you really have no idea that DisplayPort exceeds HDMI bitrate and capabilities or that you only need a $1 adapter from mDP(male)-to-HDMI(female) to output HDMI/DVI video signals?
Is that an attempt at sarcasm or do you really have no idea that Apple supports the DisplayPort standard that top of the lIne Dells, and Nvidia and ATI GPUs are supporting? Do you really have no idea that DisplayPort exceeds HDMI bitrate and capabilities or that you only need a $1 adapter from mDP(male)-to-HDMI(female) to output HDMI/DVI video signals?
Nope. Not sarcasm. I don't know what displayport is. I rarely buy stuff that isn't yet widely supported. It was years before I bought my first USB peripheral, for example. I waited until after it was no longer called the "Useless Serial Buss".
If inexpensive adapters are available, there's no big deal, of course. Kind of a PITA when you are out and about, but not huge.
I'll check out DisplayPort. Thanks.
I'll check out DisplayPort. Thanks.
Just got back from Wikipedia. Interesting stuff.
Part of it said:
In addition to active converters, the same guideline document also describes a way for devices supporting both DisplayPort and DVI 1.0 or HDMI to use a single DisplayPort connector for both, using a relatively simple adapter that adjusts for the lower voltages required by the DisplayPort connector. A notable limitation is that this is limited to Single Link DVI/HDMI, and that an active Converter is needed for Dual-Link communication.
So I'm not sure exactly how this limitation would affect real-life usage - will 1080p/7.1/5.1/high def stuff work properly with Single-Link? If so, why was Double Link developed? Is there any practical problem with DP-to-HDMI conversion with a simple cable being limited to Single Link?
Apple supports the DisplayPort standard that top of the lIne Dells, and Nvidia and ATI GPUs are supporting?
I just Googled "Dell DisplayPort" and the first article at the first link said:
Dell is on a mission to prove it's a technology leader by making sure that DisplayPort--the DVI replacement that it's pushing hard for the industry to adopt--appears on your next notebook, PC, and monitor. There's just one problem: We don't need DisplayPort. It currently doesn't offer any real cost or performance benefits over the well-established HDMI interface, which is appearing on a growing number of products. DisplayPort's introduction is likely to cause confusion and frustration for buyers seeking a monitor that will work with their notebook or PC at home.
Wow. That's why I'm so rarely an early adopter. And I guess, that's part of the reason why I don't understand Apple's way of doing things.
I'm always leery of jumping on bandwagons before there's a band or a wagon - especially with this technology stuff. Its too dynamic and too fickle and too often PR accounts for success more than capability.
I'd hate to have to search for a limited selection of external monitors, rather than having a full selection of industry standard stuff available. But then again, I'd hate to have to search around for a limited selection of 'web videos too, rather than knowing that any/all of them will just work on my machine. I don't get it. Maybe I never will.
Nope. Not sarcasm. I don't know what displayport is. I rarely buy stuff that isn't yet widely supported. It was years before I bought my first USB peripheral, for example. I waited until after it was no longer called the "Useless Serial Buss".
If inexpensive adapters are available, there's no big deal, of course. Kind of a PITA when you are out and about, but not huge.
I'll check out DisplayPort. Thanks.
It's completely free, it's faster, it has more features, higher bandwidth, higher resolution, and it's futurefoward. It's the only way ATI is offering Eyefinity and it's the way of the future, unless Intel's LightPeak can make itself useful in a relatively short timeframe.That is one sick GPU...Or you can go with that old setup...
I just Googled "Dell DisplayPort" and the first article at the first link said:
[...]
Wow. That's why I'm so rarely an early adopter.
if you want to stick with old tech then nothing Apple does is right for you. There are still plenty of PCs with VGA ports.
As for what you quoted, it's pretty pathetic. Why are all the big vendors supporting in on the high0end if it doesn't have "performance benefits over [...] HDMI interface"? And you have to wonder about the validity of any comment that says It currently doesn't offer any real cost [...] benefits" when it's free while HDMI isn't and it's backwards compatible with HDMI/DVI singling out.
That is one sick GPU...
Can't argue with you there!
if you want to stick with old tech then nothing Apple does is right for you. There are still plenty of PCs with VGA ports.
I checked it out - my Dell has a VGA port too.
My attitude WRT video is to buy last year's latest and greatest at a fraction of the price that it once was. I've never been a huge gamer, so that's where I've compromised.
As for what you quoted, it's pretty pathetic. Why are all the big vendors supporting in on the high0end if it doesn't have "performance benefits over [...] HDMI interface"? And you have to wonder about the validity of any comment that says It currently doesn't offer any real cost [...] benefits" when it's free while HDMI isn't and it's backwards compatible with HDMI/DVI singling out.
I dunno - it was the first article on the first click away from Google. BTW, the cost of licensing HDMI is 4 cents per device, according to something I read somewhere in the last couple of hours. Maybe Wiki?
And yeah - after doing some looking around, I agree that the article was lame.
I would dock it so that I don't have to hold it 2 hours for watching a movie. And charging the battery at the same time would be standard.
There are accessories for you to choose from other than the keyboard/dock combo. Here's one that Apple will ship soon:
Within 3 months, there will tens of accessories. Within a year, there will be hundreds. Maybe a "smartbook" case will be one of them.
No. I would like to exchange files with an USB drive, a camera, iPod and so on without the need of a computer. That is what netbooks can do. And I see that the iPad tries to compete with netbooks.
Here are some other accessories:
Less convenient than a netbook, but one has to make tradeoffs on what you want. Netbooks will run your typical MS Windows software too, iPad users will not have them to play with, but I imagine Apple is selling something other than a cheap Windows laptop with an iPad, no?
The iPad is not designed to access web video. The iPad is not designed to dock on a bedside tray table and play a movie in landscape mode. The iPad is not designed to optimally display 16:9 content, or any content in HD. The iPad is not designed to play most common audio and video formats and codecs. The iPad is not designed to access external hard drives. The iPad is not designed to work as a common portable external hard drive. The iPad is not designed to output via HDMI to TV sets.
The iPad doesn't make breakfast for you either. Really, what's the point here?
Like all of Apple's products, the iPad serves to do the few key cases really well, and leaves out all corner cases, and all cases that goes against Apple's strategic direction. If one finds those cases really valuable, the best advice is to not get an iPad.
Will they cause the iPad to be a commercial failure? Who knows, but they've done fine with the same kind of strategy for Macs, iPods, iPod touches, and iPhones. The unit market for iPads will be in the 2-4 million units per year in 2010, maybe 2-4 million per quarter in 2012. If they end up selling 2x as many iPads per quarter as they do Macs, I think they are doing extremely well. More than extremely well.
"The iPad is not designed to dock on a bedside tray table and play a movie in landscape mode."
There will be plenty of accessories that'll allow one to view in landscape.
"The iPad is not designed to optimally display 16:9 content, or any content in HD."
Does it really matter? Somehow I don't think so. People can choose to view videos at original aspect ratios, but downscaled or have it cropped in fullscreen. They will then continue to enjoy their content.
Are you going to complain about black borders on all TV and monitors for 2.35:1 content? Do people even complain about it? Not really. Most just move on and play them cropped or with black borders. Hell, what drives my bat-shit insane are people who stretch 4:3 content (90% of the TV content out there) to fill the screen on 16:9 aspect ratio TVs, and think nothing of it. I honestly think people don't even know the difference. If that doesn't bother people, I'm guessing the presence of black borders won't bother people.
"The iPad is not designed to play most common audio and video formats and codecs."
H.264, AAC and MP3 are 90% of the cases out there. I'm sure Apple is more than happy to not put in the work to support Windows media, FOSS formats, or any others.
The iPad is not designed to access external hard drives.
Perhaps there will be an app for that. It looks like it can view SD cards through the adaptor, but who knows if it'll read NTFS or HFS+.
The iPad is not designed to work as a common portable external hard drive."
When that becomes really important, I'm sure Apple will turn on the switch. In the meanwhile, I'm sure there will be an app for that through both the dock connector and WiFi.
The iPad is not designed to output via HDMI to TV sets."
It supports the usual composite and component inputs. Costly with an adaptor, but if you find it valuable enough, then I'm sure buying the adaptor is money well spent.
The iPad is not designed to access web video. The iPad is not designed to dock on a bedside tray table and play a movie in landscape mode. The iPad is not designed to optimally display 16:9 content, or any content in HD. The iPad is not designed to play most common audio and video formats and codecs. The iPad is not designed to access external hard drives. The iPad is not designed to work as a common portable external hard drive. The iPad is not designed to output via HDMI to TV sets.
So it's not designed for me.
Not to mention you keep calling MS vaproware and the fact is Windows & is as good as if not better then Snow Leopard.
I think the idea of a Win7 touch tablet is very exciting. Just think of the fun I'll have repairing my Registry on a touch screen! And the number of new and innovative touch-based defrag programs should be mind-boggling. I expect Symantec and Norton won't let me down either--just touch to scan and pinch the virus to remove it! And in 6 months, when it's time to re-install, touch will only make it more fun.
They don't? I had no idea.
Why not? Is OSX not capable of doing a good job outputting through HDMI?
Apple TV runs OS X.
Apple TV outputs through HDMI.
I'm still under the impression that nearly no Windows user want to use any simplified slate computing device. The closest thing to a slate I've gathered that any Windows user wants is a convertible netbook such as the Asus Eee PC T101MT.
http://www.gizmag.com/asus-eeepc-t10...otebook/14223/
This supposedly is the ultimate hybrid mobile solution for any Windows user.
Engadget is pointing to a video review of the Asus Eee PC T101MT here:
What's better than one hands-on report to whet your appetite ahead of the release of a new gadget? Why, two of them, of course, and it's the convertible ASUS T101MT getting the stereo impressions.
Be sure to watch the video. Then read the comments. There's a certain culture clash between the commentators, Engadget editors & contributers, and Apple users that makes reading them amusing.
Engadget is pointing to a video review of the Asus Eee PC T101MT here:
image: ]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/02/eee-t101mt-20100228-600.jpg
Is that 16:9. Esh! Maybe 4:3 isn't right for some but how about 3:2, 16:10 or something else in between. If I wanted something only for watching videos I'd have bought a portable DVD player a long time ago.
Is that 16:9. Esh! Maybe 4:3 isn't right for some but how about 3:2, 16:10 or something else in between. If I wanted something only for watching videos I'd have bought a portable DVD player a long time ago.
1024 x 600 is something like 16/9.4. For iPad, 3:2 may be doable, but in the end, I think 4:3 was better on average for all the uses it has.
And no no no, you want to buy the iPad (at least the 32 GB 3G model) for portable DVD playing. It will be 1000x better at it. Take your DVD collection, transcode it to H.264, load the movies you want up on the iPad, and go where ever. Having 10 or 20 DVDs on the iPad at the swipe of a finger will be 1000x better than carrying a DVD player plus 10 to 20 DVDs. I was really waiting for the iPad announcement before spending hundreds of dollars on an in-car DVD player, and they saved me from purchasing a portable DVD player.
Like Discmans and pre-2001 era DAPs, DVD players are a usability nightmare. If you have any toddler kids, ripping/transcoding them onto your computer should be the first act before letting the kids touch the discs. And sheesh, the advertising (trailers and such) is horrible. It's getting to the point that they eventually will prevent you from skipping them. It's pretty hard as it is.
That is one sick GPU...
Yes it is, which means it will probably be a year (if ever) before I can get it for my Mac Pro
I am a little surprised they have six physical ports on the card since display port allows chaining of up to six displays. Then again if you have six 30" high resolution displays...
Maybe you are right. But the iPad isn't a replacement for a computer! That is the big problem here. You still need a computer to exchange files with it and you can't do chatting/surfing the full web/ and dont have a webcam. These are things the most non-geeks are using their PCs for.
The iPad is for gadget lovers who have some money over. IMHO
I think you have it reversed. Most people have computers already and don't love them, rarely even like them. They like what they can do with them - consume media, communicate, create (a little). People already have computers but the iPad will actually allow them to do most of their tasks where they want to and more portably and more comfortably with much lower maintenance overhead. People who love their traditional computers are the gadget lovers - and in a minority in the world. The traditional computer will become mostly a backup/storage device and productivity system when required - base station for computing devices like iPhone/iPads etc.
No-one on these boards is representative of the broader market and mostly clearly have huge issues empathizing with anyone unlike themselves.